Faustin Ngabu led the Catholic diocese of Goma, in North Kivu, for thirty-six years, from 1974 to 2010. His time as bishop was marked by armed conflicts and wars that tore apart eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Guided by the motto ‘all may be one’, the bishop was steadfastly committed to achieving unity among the Congolese people. First episode.
African Facts met with Faustin Ngabu twice, in February and September 2025, in Goma. During the first interview, the prelate discussed European colonisation and the nationality of the Banyarwanda in Congo.
African Facts: We are covering the two Kivu provinces in an attempt to shed light on the various conflicts, including that between the Congolese state and the 23 March Movement (M23). Our aim is to enable our readers to make an informed judgement about the situation in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Given your extensive experience as head of the Diocese of Goma, we believe you can provide valuable insights and context to help us understand the causes of this war.
Faustin Ngabu: At the beginning of European colonisation, Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania were German colonies. Burundi and Rwanda were placed under Belgian protectorate after the First World War. However, the Belgians administered them as though they were colonies. Like the Congo. The Congo, for its part, became a colony in 1908 when King Leopold II transferred ownership to Belgium.
What many Congolese people do not know, or do not want to know, is that the former Rwanda stretched as far as Kanyabayonga [about 100 kilometres north of Goma Ed.]. Therefore, the entire territory of present-day Congo, stretching from Goma to the Rutshuru territory [a region bordering Rwanda and Uganda, stretching north of Goma to Lake Edward Ed.], and as far as Kanyabayonga and Sake [20 km east of Goma Ed.], was formerly part of Rwanda. The inhabitants of Goma belonged to a branch of the Banyarwanda known as the Abagunga.
Note from African Facts Editor: Faustin Ngabu repeats a theory developed by author Alexis Kagame, which is disputed. If it turns out that Rwandans did indeed travel to Kanyabayonga in ancient times, they could just as easily have done so via Uganda. Furthermore, the Banyarwanda did not establish a lasting presence in Kanyabayonga. The places where their ancient presence is commonly accepted are the chiefdoms of Biayi, Busanza, Jomba, Gisigari and Rugari.
— How did this part of ancient Rwanda become part of the Congo?
In 1910, Belgium and Germany decided to draw a new border. As a result, this part of Rwanda became part of the Congo. All these territories were transferred to the Congo.
— So it was a power struggle between Belgium and Germany for control of the territories in the region?
Yes. A few years later [during the First World War Ed.], the Germans wanted to recover these territories by allying themselves with Yuhi Musinga [the King of Rwanda at the time, Ed.]. Germany lost the war. The border remained in place and the Belgians decided that they had to find a way to limit Rwanda’s influence over this part of the Congo.
— How did the Belgians go about limiting Rwanda’s influence over these territories?
One chiefdom was created in Rutshuru, modelled on the chiefdoms of Rwanda and ruled by a mwami — a title given to monarchs and traditional chiefs. However, the Belgians distorted history because they no longer wanted the Tutsi. They wanted to demonstrate that there had never been any Tutsi in the Rutshuru region. So instead of calling it the Banyarwanda chiefdom, they called it the “Bahutu chiefdom”. Historically, there has never been a Bahutu chiefdom among the Banyarwanda. This is because all of the Bayanrwanda clans are mixed Hutu and Tutsi.
The Belgians created another chiefdom in Goma, in an area called Biayi. They appointed Kayembe, a Mukumu chief [the Bakumu are a minority originating from the provinces of Maniema and Tshopo, Ed.], relocated there, as its leader. They called this chiefdom the “Bakumu chiefdom”. However, there were no Bakumu people here. Once again, this distorted history. The aim was to make people believe that this part of the territory, from Goma to Masisi [a territory extending east of Goma Ed.], had never been inhabited by Banyarwanda. So neither Hutu nor Tutsi.
Today, we are subjected to this version of history, created by the Belgians. If we based ourselves on the act of independence, we would not have these problems.
Note from African Facts Editor: The intentions behind the creation of these two chiefdoms by the Belgians can be viewed from another angle. As the region was highly contested, particularly by the German and British empires, Brussels wanted to install chiefs who were loyal to them because they owed everything to the Belgians. Chief Kayembe, who hailed from Lubutu, was appointed in 1913 and confirmed in 1920, partly due to his proficiency in Kiswahili. The Tutsi chiefs of Busanza and Jomba, and the Hutu chiefs of Gisigari and Rugari, were probably too closely linked to the royal power of Rwanda. This may explain why, in 1920, Belgium made Damien Ndeze a mwami and dissolved these four chiefdoms, bringing them under his authority. However, this created the misconception that the region was predominantly Hutu.
— So the Banyarwanda lived in Congo before independence?
Yes, as I just explained. Until 30 June 1960, it is important to note that all ethnic groups in Congo were Belgian subjects. This included the Banyarwanda. It was through the act of independence that we obtained Congolese nationality. All ethnic groups obtained nationality on the same day. No ethnic group obtained it more than the others. Claims that the Tutsi and Hutu of North Kivu, or the Tutsi of South Kivu, are not Congolese are false. They go against History. The Act of Independence is the only event that justifies the nationality of all Congolese ethnic groups. This applies to both ethnic groups that were “indigenous” and those that originate from migration. Everyone received Congolese nationality.
When we consider who the indigenous people are in our diocese of Goma, we find that they include the Bakano, the Banyanga, the Batembo, the Bahavu, the Banyarwanda of Biyai and the Banyarwanda of Rugari, Gisigari, Jomba, Busanza…
— But haven’t there already been conflicts between the different groups in the region?
Yes. For example, I would have understood if the Bashi people [a community living on the southern shores of Lake Kivu Ed.], had fought the Rwandans. There have been many wars between Rwanda and the Bashi, after all. In fact, at one point the Bashi even ruled part of Rwanda. All of Nyungwe was in their hands. The Rwandans had to reconquer it.
But I don’t understand why our Nande brothers [the majority community in certain territories in the north of the province, Ed.] would start telling stories. Because they had no problem with the Rwandans.
You know, if you go to Arua, for example, you have the Lugbara on both the Ugandan and Congolese sides. The same applies to the Kakwa, who are found on both the Sudanese and Congolese sides. There are Congolese Alur who farm on the Ugandan side, and Ugandan Alur who come to farm on the Congolese side. But they have never experienced the conflicts we have here.
The situation here has been exacerbated by the fact that the Nande would like to be the sole representatives of North Kivu. And to achieve this, they have to portray the Banyarwanda as foreigners.
— Did the racist propaganda spread by the Rwandan state until 1994, which led to the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi, have any repercussions here?
The influence of rhetoric from Rwanda on our region began with the Kayibanda regime [the dictator of Rwanda from 1959 to 1973 Ed.]. The Rwandan Hutu were starting to whisper in the ears of the Hutu here. This created tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi in the Rutshuru territory. Hutu extremists in Rutshuru also questioned the nationality of the Banyarwanda in Masisi, regardless of whether they were Hutu or Tutsi.
According to those holding this mentality, Hutus are not Banyarwanda. They are Hutus. When they talk about Banyarwanda, they are talking about Tutsis. This is an emerging reality, but it is incorrect. As I said, you cannot find Hutus on their own. Among the Banyarwanda, there are always both Hutus and Tutsis.
— Following the collapse in July 1994 of the regime that committed the Tutsi genocide, more than two million people arrived in refugee camps in Zaire, now the DRC, from Rwanda. They were carriers of this genocidal ideology…
The entire Rwandan army and administration moved here. Along with many refugees. I don’t call them refugees, though. It was the entire population that had moved.
I must say that aid came quickly from the international community. However, the international community haven’t been correct either. Because Mobutu [dictator of Zaire until 1997, Ed.] wanted us to send the refugees further into the country. At that point, all the organisations and NGOs that had come refused. Because everyone wanted to make money first… Well, when they finished their projects, when they got their funding, they asked Mobutu to bring the refugees far from the borders. Mobutu said, “No, when I offered it to you, you refused, and now I can’t do that anymore”. So that’s how they stayed.
Rwanda saw this as a threat. This was because they were also arming them. Meanwhile, the international community continued to arm the Hutus in the camps. That’s how Rwanda organised itself to intervene. I think that took the international community by surprise.
— What happened to the refugees when Rwanda intervened?
Most of them returned to Rwanda. A small number fled to Masisi and then on to Kisangani, dispersing to Congo-Brazzaville, Cameroon and elsewhere.
— We can assume that those most involved in the Tutsi genocide and driven by this ideology did not return to Rwanda, but instead headed for Masisi and so on. Did they leave for regions populated by Congolese Banyarwanda?
Yes, they left for there.
And Kabila came to power with the help of the AFDL [the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo, supported in particular by Uganda and Rwanda Ed.]. However, once in power, Kabila and the Rwandans could not agree on anything. It was at this point that Kabila called on the Interahamwe [the militiamen who committed the genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda, Ed.] who were scattered throughout Africa. They returned. [Kabila] then organised them to defeat the RCD [the Congolese Rally for Democracy, a rebellion supported by Rwanda, Ed.].
Then, in 2001, Kabila died. It was the son who perpetuated his father’s power. And he continued to work with the Interahamwe and the FDLR [the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, an armed criminal group formed by former Rwandan génocidaires Ed.].
— So, the Interahamwe and the former Rwandan armed forces, who were responsible for the genocide of the Tutsi, returned to the region?
Yes, that’s right.
— Did this divide the Congolese Banyarwanda?
Yes, it weakened them. Because their identity is to be Munyarwanda.
The Congolese Banyarwanda, who did not want to be identified as Rwandans, referred to themselves as “Rwandophones”. But “Rwandophone” means absolutely nothing. I am not Munyarwanda. However, if I speak Kinyarwanda, I am considered a Rwandophone. That is denying your identity.
These divisions between Banyarwanda made the other ethnic groups stronger. The Banyarwanda in Congo destroyed their own identity. It is only now that they are beginning to accept it again: they are Banyarwanda!
Like the Banyarwanda in Uganda, who are Ugandan nationals. Or those in Tanzania, who are Tanzanian. But they all remain Munyarwanda. Many of these Banyarwanda ended up in the territory known as Rwanda, so they are Rwandan by nationality. The same applies in Congo, where they are Congolese Banyarwanda. If this truth could resurface, it might help to resolve the problems.
